Everything is a Red Herring

Everything is a red herring...almost. A red herring is most likely a true statement, but it distracts from what's truly important. Here are some examples:

Federal Deficit and Debt

The out-of-control Federal spending is leading us to a fiscal crisis. I recently posted about D.O.G.E in response to red herrings related to the department. These red herrings point to specific examples of cuts that will cause harm. Still, none of them address the real problem: the interest payments on our debt are already more than our defense spending, which will soon be our country's biggest expense item, surpassing both Social Security and Healthcare spending. I've written about this for over 15 years here, here, here, and here.

Cyberwarfare and Political Polarization

We are under attack. Cyberwarfare is conducted against the U.S. by Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and others. These attacks are well documented in "This Is How They Tell Me The World Ends: The cyber weapons arm race" by Nicole Perlroth, and "Sandworm" by Andy Greenberg. Our enemies' goal is to create chaos in the U.S., and they are succeeding. I've written about the polarization in the U.S.  here and here. Most of the political polarization is just intentionally induced red herrings.

Environmental Sustainability

The discussions around Global Warming or "Anthropogenic Climate Change" have resulted in a red herring food fight. The problem is that the activists are blatantly manipulative, causing the skeptics to reject any scientific basis. I've participated in this here, here, here, here, and here. I recommend you read this one: Global Warming: Here's a better story.

The real problem is governmental policies that depend on and drive growth. Our Earth can't sustain unlimited growth, and for 99.9999% of us, there's nowhere else to go. For additional insights, read "Prosperity without Growth" by Tim Jackson and "Doughnut Economics" by Kate Raworth.

From ChatGPT:

🔵 Red Herrings from Climate Change Advocates

1. "The world will end in X years"
   → Overstating urgency with doomsday timelines can discredit valid concerns and scientific models.
   Red herring: Shifts focus from actionable mitigation to fear-based speculation.

2. "Anyone who questions anything is a denier"
   → Not all critiques are denial; some are about policy, economics, or priorities.
   Red herring: Avoids engaging with legitimate nuances.

3. "It's all the fault of big oil"
   → While fossil fuel companies play a major role, blaming them exclusively avoids discussing individual or governmental responsibility.
   Red herring: Oversimplifies a complex, systemic issue.

4. "We must act now, regardless of cost"
   → Urgency is real, but ignoring economic trade-offs can alienate support.
   Red herring: Sidesteps cost-benefit or equity discussions.

---

🔴 Red Herrings from Climate Change Skeptics

1. "The climate has always changed"
   → True, but irrelevant to the current rate, causes, and human contributions.
   Red herring: Distracts from the core issue of anthropogenic climate change.

2. "It was really cold last week"
   → Weather ≠ climate.
   Red herring: Uses short-term data to undermine long-term trends.

3. "Scientists used to warn about global cooling"
   → A fringe hypothesis in the 1970s, not a serious consensus.
   Red herring: Undermines current science by misrepresenting past uncertainty.

4. "Environmentalists are hypocrites who fly in jets"
   → Even if true, it doesn't disprove the reality of climate change.
   Red herring: Attacks the messenger, not the message.

Global Warming: Here's a better story

I think we need to change the story we are using to solve the anthropogenic climate change (ACC), global warming problem.  What do I mean?  Well, a story needs:

• A good problem or conflict to resolve
• A character that:
• We can identify with 
• Who ends up being the hero that solves the problem
• Who grows and learns about themselves in the process
• The story needs to be believable, credible.

What is the ACC story?

We are facing the worst ecological disaster since the extinction of the dinosaurs.  People caused this by our reckless burning of fossil fuels.  People must give up driving cars and all modern conveniences and become vegans in order to stop the disaster.  We also need to give politicians more power so they can be the heroes.

Not a very fun or engaging story.  It reads more like a sad tragedy or horror.  The failures are:

1.  A character we can't and don't want to identify with.
2. Our character isn't the hero.
3. We didn't learn anything good about ourselves.
4. There's not a credible hero or solution to the problem.  
5. The conflict seems exaggerated since it puts all blame on humans leaving out other causes such as the earth being in a 400+ years of thawing since the last ice age, polar bear deaths are due to hunting for population control, etc.  You can read my previous post here on these facts.

Here's a better story:

As our population grows and third world countries rise above poverty, our resources will need to be shared more effectively.  This includes food (from farms and fishing), fresh water, raw materials (metal, plastic, wood, etc.)  As always, we find a way to adapt.  This includes sustainable processes, new technologies, new economies, open scientific exploration and understanding of the problem, etc.  Through this transformation we realize that mankind has been continually evolving, from hunter gatherer, to farmer, to cities; traveling on foot, then on beast, then on machine.  As borders disappear due to cities overlapping, continued legal migration, the Internet and social media, we learn that greater collaboration is needed.  

Why is it better?

1. We can better identify with the character.
2. The hero actively solves the problem.
3. The hero grows and learns about themselves.
4. The story is more believable because we are addressing current observable trends instead of a future calamity predicted by a computer model. 

This second story may not be perfect; but I prefer it over the current (first) story and I think it has a greater chance of actually saving the world.

Review of Glacier Change and Sea Level Rise (live public talk) by Dr. Alex Gardner

This is a review of a talk found on YouTube “Glacier Change and Sea Level Rise” by Dr. Alex Gardner from JPL.  https://youtu.be/ZJYs8L84L4s

Accepted Facts

The science in this presentation is very impressive. 

The following are facts that I accept

• CO2 is increasing
• Global Temperatures are rising
• Oceans are rising

I agree that this can have an enormous economic impact as we try to address increased flooding in coastline areas and other costs.

Some helpful points from the video:

At 4:58, The discussion of solar heating and thermal cooling.

At 7:38, the presentation of ice cores for determining climate history (CO2 levels and temperature levels)

At 10:42, the current CO2 levels

At 15:28, the presentation of rising temperatures and the discussion of the hiatus.

At 16:39, the discussion of how much of an impact a small temperature change can have.

At 17:08, the discussion of rising sea levels

At 19:24, the mostly negative effects of climate change.  I give Dr. Gardner credit for actually showing a positive consequence, such as more land and improved agriculture (this shows intellectual honesty).

At 21:03, the melting of the glaciers

At 25:37 to 27:59, the discussion of the impressive sensors that NASA has to measure glacier loss and sea level rises.

At 28:00 to 33:30, the discussion of what is happening today

At 43:40 to 46:44, presents impressive future satellites that will be deployed to help measure changes.

At 47:20 An argument for the attention to Climate Change is that the attention has resulted in investment that has contributed to improvements to the science. 

Disputed Science

I dispute the public discussion of climate change science because it excludes the following points:

1. Ice loss has been occurring for 400 years and is primarily due to an over accumulation of ice in the last mini ice age
2. As the earth warms, the thermal emissions get proportionally greater with an increased counter cooling effect.
3. Model predictions of the future are unreliable.

I discuss these points in further detail.

Lacks full Disclosure of Causes for Climate Change

The IPCC technical report states our current glaciers are out of balance since the build up during the “Little Ice Age” and have been melting for about 400 years and will continue melting even without man-made warming . 

“There is high confidence that current glacier extents are out of balance with current climatic conditions, indicating that glaciers will continue to shrink in the future even without further temperature increase.”[1]

The IPCC technical report is the only place I’ve seen this information and I’ve never heard it discussed by climate change supporters.

59:45 A question was asked about when was the last ice age.  This would have been a perfect opportunity to talk about the “Little Ice Age” but the question wasn’t answered.

Model predictions of the future are unreliable

I have over a decade of experience in scientific modeling.  This experience includes using real world data to validate the models.  All models use approximations and the smallest thing can result in an inaccurate model.  The “Butterfly Effect” is proof of the instability in predictive models for complex systems.  While the power of modern computing and sophistication of the science that goes into models is awe inspiring, it can blind the scientist to these limitations. 

35:00 “What happens next?” The presentation begins a lengthy discussion of numerical modeling which is used to predict 50 to 100 years in the future.

Dr Gardner shows his bias towards the value of models with statements like:

·         “One thing we can be certain of” (13:18),

·         “Fantastic ocean models” (39:56)

·         “We know where it’s going in the future” (35:57)

·         “The question is not if this is gonna happen.. That was already determined” (47:44)

The problem that I have with model predictions is that you can’t predict the future.  While CO2 levels and temperature are strongly correlated, there are many other factors that prevent models from predicting decades into the future.

1.       Water is a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2, yet our models can’t tell what will happen as the earth warms.  Will more water evaporate, creating a blanket that blocks the sun and results in cooling?

2.       There are large natural cycles in CO2 and temperature.  What natural forces were at play?  How will nature respond to increased CO2 over the coming decades?  For example, increased CO2 results in more plants.  Will a greener planet clean up the CO2 naturally?

I might accept a model predicting trends a few years into the future but decades as shown in:

·         Presentation of temperatures at the end of the century (13:18)

·         Shows a 1 to 2 meter rise in sea levels over the next century (18:31)

·         Simulation of melting glaciers runs to the year 2500 (36:55)

Dr. Gardner does provide acknowledgement of some of the limitations

·         “The problem is that we only have a very short record” (38:56)

·         “We’re working on the details of how much and how fast” (47:44)

Disregard for Thermal Cooling

As the earth heats up, the amount of thermal cooling is proportional to the 4^th power of temperature.  I ran MODTRAN simulations to determine that temperature changes were about a quarter of the predictions found in the literature at the time (2009).[2] The latest IPCC technical report seems to have corrected this mistake, however there seems to be a general disregard for this powerful cooling effect.

At 50:00 in the video, the first question from the audience was regarding runaway temperatures after all of the ice melts.  Dr. Gardner’s response included no insight on how the earth temperatures would be moderated by thermal cooling.  It’s not the ice that is keeping earth cool.

At 51:42 in the video, Dr Gardner does allude to this cooling by stating that temperature rises more slowly as CO2 levels get higher and higher.  

Attitudes of Alarmist and Deniers

I also take issue both Climate Change Alarmists and Climate Change Deniers on the following points:

·         The attitudes they take towards each other

·         The sensationalism of information

·         Ignoring information

·         Taking a balanced approach instead of all or nothing

An example of attitudes toward others is found at 3:24 when Dr Gardner tells the story of his surgeon asking if humans are contributing to climate warming.  He then refers to climate change as “a done deal” and wonders why “we haven’t been able to reach these smart individuals”.  The audience laughs.  He brings up his surgeon again in a dismissive tone at 20:46.

Regarding sensationalizing, both sides use it to support their viewpoints.  For example, a climate change denier might point to a freezing winter scene and ask sarcastically, “What Global Warming?”

At, 23:40 a video of an iceberg calving is shown.  It’s stated that this represents 1% of all the ice in New Zealand, but the video is of a glacier in Greenland.  Creating a statistic using an unrelated smaller land mass is sensationalizing.  Dr. Gardner states that the calving event was so large that it was measured by a seismograph in North Dakota.  This is sensationalizing the event.  Is climate change creating much larger seismic calving events or do regular, seasonal calving events also trigger seismic readings? 

Extreme events happen so let’s be honest when they are due to normal seasonal changes.

Perspective

At 48:03, the perspective is given showing that on a tiny spec of a planet, all known life exists.

I believe that man has stewardship over the earth and a responsibility to take care of it.  The problem is that if we put an imbalanced focus on climate change, we may allocate more attention on this problem than potentially more critical environmental concerns such as managing our resources: the oceans, forests, etc.  and limiting other sources of damaging pollution.

Let’s be more honest about climate change.  Man doesn’t have as much to do with climate change as the alarmists claim and we can’t know what will be happening 50 to 100 years in the future.

---

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

[2] http://wrauny.blogspot.com/2009/12/global-warming-leave-co2-alone.html

Global Warming Update: Polar Bears vs. Melting Glaciers

Let's discuss two concerns regarding the changing climate:  endangered Polar Bears vs. Melting Glaciers.

Which do you think is the biggest problem?

The findings may surprise you.

	Fear	Reality
Polar Bears	The extinction of the polar bears could upset the entire ecosystem of the Arctic and may represent a "canary in the gold mine" scenario.  If they are wiped out, what species is next?	There are 20-25,000 polar bears and the populations have been stable for 30-40 years.  Many areas use hunting to keep the populations in check.  The biggest threat to polar bears right now is hunters. [1]
Melting Glaciers	The melting of glaciers is a serious problem.  The areas of the glaciers will be turned into deserts and the oceans will rise and flood islands and shoreline.	The glaciers have been melting since the end of the Little Ice Age 400-500 years ago and will melt even without Global Warming. "There is high confidence that current glacier extents are out of balance with current climatic conditions, indicating that glaciers will continue to shrink in the future even without further temperature increase." [2]

I think that a bigger risk than endangerment of polar bears and melting glaciers is the lack of honesty in the climate change discussion.  This disregard for reality creates skeptics.  If climate change is real and a risk for our futures, let's be honest about it so that we can work together to figure out a solution.

References:
[1] http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/polar-bear
Two months ago I reviewed the World Wildlife Foundation website regarding Polar Bears.  It clearly stated that the polar bear populations have been stable for the last 30-40 years and that hunting is used for population control.  The website has been redesigned and this information is no longer available.  The primary focus is on the risks of Climate Change.  The previous site had a map of subpopulations showing which ones were increasing in population, which were stable and which were decreasing.  The new site only states that 8 of 19 subpopulations are in decline.  Here is the old graphic (which I luckily saved)

[2] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Technical Summary for 2013 regarding melting glaciers.  http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf  page 41

Inciting Violence

Here's some content in the media that could be used to incite violence.

Palin's "Hit List"

The Global Warming/Climate Change "10/10" project


Update 1/21/2011
Bears/Packers Playoffs (Parody Video)

Terrorism kills, and Barbara Boxer’s worried about the weather.

The primaries are over and Barbara Boxer has launched a website http://fiorinafacts.com/ to provide "facts" about Carly Fiorina.

I think that some of "Call me Senator" Boxer's attacks may backfire. Specifically the "Fiorina’s Flippant Climate Change Attack".

“One of the very important national security issues we face, frankly, is climate change,” the ad shows Boxer opining in 2007. “Terrorism kills,” Fiorina declares in response, “and Barbara Boxer’s worried about the weather.”

First of all, equating climate change with the weather is childish in its ignorance. Fortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency has a helpful kids’ site that enunciates the difference. “Weather,” the site notes, “describes whatever is happening outdoors in a given place at a given time. Weather is what happens from minute to minute.” In contrast, “Climate is the long-term average of a region’s weather events lumped together…Climate describes the total of all weather occurring over a period of years in a given place.”

I didn't know "equating climate change with the weather" was such a serious fault. I would like to see a definition of "Climate Change" that doesn't use the word "weather" nor have anything to do with the weather.

Fiorina should have said "Terrorism kills, and Barbara Boxer’s worried about the long-term average of weather events". Not as catchy.
Don't call me ma'am

Eat to Live

I remember one summer my parents decided our family was going to go on a "fruit fast". I guess they hadn't invented the word "vegan" yet. We ate fruits and vegetables, not meat, and maybe some whole grains. My parents both claimed they felt wonderful. I remember being very hungry, though it was nice breaking the sugar addiction.

This memory came flashing back two weeks ago when my wife came home from visiting friends and introduced me to Joel Fuhrman's book "Eat to Live". It sounded a lot like my childhood "fruit fast", and since it made my parents feel better, I figured it might work for me.

I started reading the book the same time we started the diet and found it convincing. I tried to find critics of "Eat to Live" and the only critics I could find where on a forum at a Low Carb website (Adtkin's Dieters who love their meat).

I was enjoying our new diet and started losing some of my midsection (I went from 201 lbs to 196) while my wife, who was more interested in losing weight (along with the health benefits) GAINED 4 lbs. I couldn't believe anyone could gain weight on this diet.

After she visited a doctor, we are on a new diet. We'll keep eating healthier but include more protein. My wife has already lost 5 lbs. in less than a week.

This all leaves me a little puzzled trying to reconcile the research that Dr. Fuhrman presented. He made a very convincing argument that eating food derived from animals (meat, milk , eggs, cheese, etc.) resulted in higher incidents of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.

I still need to read How to Lie with Statistics, but I'm guessing there is something related here. What I want to understand is whether eating meat is like playing Russian Roulette, if you eat it you have a greater chance of dying? or whether it depends more on your genetic makeup whether or not you should eat meat.

Either way, I heard a very compelling argument for the "Eat to Live" lifestyle. Basically, it is more sustainable, since every pound of meat takes 50 to 100 pounds of food (from plants). Therefore, a meat based diet takes 50-100 times as much water and produces a lot of nasty waste. I would think that the Global Warming, Anthropogenic Climate Change zealots would adopt "Eat to Live" as part of their morality.

A final note: The 50-100 pounds of food making one pound of meat is reason that we don't eat carnivores (Lions, etc.), since every pound of Lion takes 50-100 lbs of meat, which takes 50-100 pounds of plants. In other words, 1 pound of carnivore takes 2,500 to 10,000 lbs of plants. It's just not economical.